Furor over proposed shift in Scouts no-gays policy

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, urged callers to persist even if they couldn't get through at first.

NEW YORK (AP) — The Boy Scouts of America faces intensifying criticism from the left and right over aproposal to move away from a mandatory no-gays membership policy and allow troop sponsors to decide the matter for themselves.

The Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group that initially welcomed the BSA's possible shift, said Thursday that it was inadequate and demanded that the Scouts adopt a nationwide policy to accept gays as scouts and adult leaders.

The HRC said corporations that continued to donate funds to the Scouts if any troops were allowed to discriminate would lose points in an annual evaluation of how major employers deal with gay-related workplace issues.

Meanwhile, conservative groups which support the long-standing no-gays policy asked their followers to flood BSA headquarters with phone calls opposing any change,

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, urged callers to persist even if they couldn't get through at first.

"The BSA national leadership were not prepared for the thousands of Americans who were shocked to hear that an organization that could always be counted on for standing for what's right was about to cave in to homosexual activists and corporations," Perkins said in an emailed appeal.

"It is so important that you keep the pressure on, to show them how devastating this moral collapse will be for the Scouts and the country," he said.

Similar appeals were made by other conservative groups across the country.

The Boy Scouts, who emphatically reaffirmed the no-gays policy just seven months ago, announced on Monday that they were considering a major change. Instead of mandatory exclusion of gays, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue — either maintaining the exclusion or opening up their membership.

The proposal is expected to be discussed, and possibly voted on, at a meeting of the Scouts' national executive board next week in Texas.

Deron Smith, the Scouts' national spokesman, declined comment on the Human Rights Campaign's announcement and also denied reports that the Scouts were taking a poll to gauge public sentiment on the controversy.

"When we receive calls we allow people to provide feedback, but if the board decides to address this topic, it will be about what is in the best interest of Scouting," Smith said. "Regardless of what people think about this issue, America needs Scouting."

Many Scout units are sponsored by relatively conservative religious denominations — notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Southern Baptist churches. Catholic and Mormon leaders have withheld official comment on the proposal, but Southern Baptist officials have criticized it.

The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in a blog post that the new policy "is almost sure to please no one and to lead to disaster for the Scouts."

"Those pressing for a reversal of the national policy are not likely to be satisfied with a local option," he wrote. "They had demanded a national policy mandating the full inclusion of homosexuals throughout Scouting at every level.

"On the other side, those who wanted the current policy to remain in place will now have to reconsider any relationship with the Boy Scouts," Mohler added. "The scale of potential membership loss to the Boy Scouts of America is staggering."

Fred Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Scout board members now needed to decide "what kind of America they want to be a part of" — one that frowns on all discrimination or tolerates a degree of it.

"The board has to make a decision one way or another," he said. "The policy proposal they're considering makes the problem worse, not better."

The Human Rights Campaign's president, Chad Griffin, likened the proposed policy change "to a national restaurant chain saying that it will not discriminate at its corporate headquarters, but allow local restaurants to discriminate at will."

To back up its stance, Griffin's organization said it would change the criteria for its annual Corporate Equality Index. To receive a perfect score, companies would have to prohibit philanthropic giving to civic organizations that have a written policy of anti-gay discrimination, or permit its chapters, affiliates, or troops to do so.

Amid pressure from petition campaigns, two corporations — UPS Inc. and Merck & Co. — announced last year they were halting donations to the Scouts until the no-gays policy was changed. For 2011, UPS donated more than $85,000 and Merck gave $30,000 to the BSA and $10,000 to a regional Scout council.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

intolerance inspiring? Well, the last I heard, there was still a lot of argument about the LDS and Catholics being Christians, but I'm sure that all will agree that the SBC is Christian...except those that can't accept the SBC as Christians.

It's so nice to see folks that can't tolerate or accept each other identifying with the same Messiah, band together to not tolerate or accept gays.

But then, there is a history of all three organizations protecting pedophiles within their own organizations.

Apparently, they are anti-gay, and anti-molested, but pro-molester.

And their collective followers are apparently supportive of these stances.

Kudos to the BSA for trying to work things out between these kinds of folks, and the rest of US, but thumbs down on being so 1/2 @$$ed about the whole thing.

By declaring the BSA to be anti-discriminatory, they would have won the support of the rest of US. Instead, they face attacks from both the inclusionists, and the exclusionists.

I don't hear the gays saying that they won't support the BSA unless they ban Catholics, Mormons, and Baptists. Kind of a one way thing there.

Jesus was all about hatred and intolerance. It says so in the Bible.

I feel for all those Christians out there who feel offended and/or embarrassed by this sort of intolerance, but, you know, y'all share a Messiah. If you want to differentiate yourselves from them, you'll have to be as loud as them. They sure do make Christians look bad as a group,

I guess the Supreme Court decision finding a right for freedom of association only applies to certain groups; the idea was that people have a right to be part of an organization whose values and culture are closely related to one's own preferences. That freedom has been twisted to mean that if someone doesn't want to associate with a particular group, for whatever reason, then they must "hate" those individuals, and are labeled as bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. Just because I don't agree with someone's lifestyle or culture or religious beliefs does not mean that I hate them or feel they should be discriminated against, but I should still have the right to not associate with them in a private organization. Forcing a group to admit members who do not have the same values and culture as the organization does not make the situation better, it makes it worse. It's called the tyranny of the minority, and the right of individual freedom of association is being blackmailed into obscurity.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

If the BSA does not want to include gays or atheists, it is their right to do so. However, if people don't want to support a group that discriminates against gays, that is also their right, just as it is the right of those who support the ban against gays to refuse to support the BSA for rescinding that ban.

It looks like the BSA is between a rock and some angle iron. Hiding and protecting pedophiles while banning openly gay folks kind of adds to the BSA's problems, as it does the three religious groups mentioned in the article who support the ban.

You have the right to associate with whomever you want. Do you want gay people to wear a star of david so that you can recognize them and walk on the other side of the street? I would bet that you would not recognize a majority of the gays on the street when you see them.

"If the BSA does not want to include gays or atheists, it is their right to do so...... just as it is the right of those who support the ban against gays to refuse to support the BSA for rescinding that ban."

Jeff, I am sorry, but you are the most intollerant of people if anyone has the temerity to disagree with your point of view. You make a statement above where by you state anyone who is not pro gay and slightly religious are all anti gay, anti molested but pro molestor, why not throw racist in there or anti women.......I think those are the only two you missed out.

You seem to be of the opinion that the only views that count or hold merit for anything, (and can not be derided), are pro gay, pro women, pro any religion you care to mention (butNOT christian), pro liberal agenda, pro union, pro dependancy state, pro free non responsible sex, pro taxpayors paying for everything for everybody, anti gun, anti men, (especially men over 45), anti school tests, anti not paying teachers more, anti anyone who makes money and wants to keep it, and anti white opinions.

You are the posterchild for left wing socialism and group dependancy; in your world there is always someone to blame or abuse for not giving you stuff and the things that go wrong are never your fault.

In short you are pro-handout and equality for everyone, as long as that does not include whites, working people, non union members non drug takers, christians and basically anyone who does not want to be dependant on welfare and handouts, or who has the mistaken belief that you are what you yourself create and the only way to get better is not to drag others down to your level, but to force yourself up and beyond theirs!

With every right comes responsibility.......if you are not willing to accept responsibility, then you do not deserve the right.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

I am extremely intolerant because I criticize intolerant people, especially those who use their religion as an excuse to be intolerant, and by standing up for those upon whom the religious right continue to discriminate.

I'm also extremely intolerant because I point out the hypocrisy of those who blame their intolerance upon their Messiah, a man who only showed intolerance toward the wealthy, and those who made money from their religion, while protecting predators of children in their own midst.

I ask that we all receive the same rights and respect, and you support those who only want their own rights be protected, including the right to discriminate against others, whom they criticize for wanting equal rights with their critics.

If that is intolerance, than I have been, am, and will intolerant until all of US have equal rights.

I have never heard a gay, say that they are against the BSA because there are a lot of religious people involved with it, however, that is not how the religious right sees things.

Like the GOTP, the BSA may cease to exist, because the tolerant, won't tolerate BSA prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance, and the prejudice, intolerant, bigots, won't allow the BSA to stop being intolerant, prejudiced, and bigoted.

The BSA, is free to make it's choices, as are the GOTP, the Catholics, the LDS, and the SBC. And, as are the rest of US.

More and more, there is no country for old, bigoted, white men.

A thought that crossed my mind. None of the gays fighting, dying, and serving in our armed forces can be part of the BSA, even if they grew up in it before they figured out, or admitted that they were gay.

I'm afraid that the BSA is doomed. No skin off of my nose. The Girl Scouts are much more tolerant. Maybe they could start a transgendered scout group called something like "Scouts".

Ok Jeff..........I will bet you $100 that neither the Republican party or the BSA disapper before the next election. Y ou are so confident then agree to that. I do not object to your opinions Jeff, I jsut think you use vocabulary that if those you object to used it you would take great offence. You also tend to broad brush stroke the rest of the country not encompassed in your pet groups as racist/sexist pro deviants who follow a failed religious ethic. Your posts can be very insulting at times.

Now to go off on an insult rant of my own:

@Otimio.....Please please point out to me where in my post I said anyhting about color, race, age anything....just one part would be nice. There is one part, if it helps, i said Jeff was anti white males over 45.......this was again backed up by Jeff's own post..."More and more, there is no country for old, bigoted, white men." But in no part do I blame any specific gender/ race/creed for anything or point one out as worse than the other.

You are the worst kind of racist IMO, you call everyone else a racist if they do not agree with your personal blinkered view of something, when all the while you are unable or unwilling to see your own racist rants as just that. You made asenine statements about NRA members...we were ALL NRA goons/thugs and cowards...and as I pointed out you were wrong there as well. You jump on an argument and spout pure drivel, all so you can get in your anti Donald May/anti Governor rant printed. From where i sit, your rants about these men are based on jealousy and envy, nothing more, deep down you wish you were them or had what they have.

If either of us could be considered a racist, Otimio, it would be you......and if either could be considered "rabid" in anyway, again you would win. As an FYI, to help you, if thats possible, of course whites are the majority on welfare......we are the majority race at the moment, I beleive its around 64% of the populace, so it would be safe to assume they would be the biggest welfare collecting group, it is simple mathmatics.

As I pointed out, whites make up 64% of the populace. That means non-whites make up the other 36%. Using your figues, that 36% accounts for 41,453,500 of the recipients. Meaning almost half as many people acount for almost double the recipient numbers.

"It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems."

I am not defending him, I do not know who he is so why would i defend him? I do not understand why you have such a hatred for him, he is doing what hundreds, even millions of others are doing and I am guessing its legal because he has yet to go to court for it, no matter how much you say the same thing every day over and over again.

And you may even be right, if what you state is correct, then he IS part of the reason we have a deficit, but I am guessing a small part; he is no where near as big as Sylindra, GM unions, failure to open up drilling in Anwar, failure to allow the oil pipeline, the costs of Obama care, and a multitude of other "sweetners" given out by this government. Now before everyone gets all ansy, I do not think a great deal more about the previous government either. But they did not raise my taxes, declare war on the rich, openly support anarchy in New York, increase dependancy or make people believe they are "entitled" to the proceeds of the work of others.